The Trib's Orwellian Take On Net Neutrality

From today's op-ed page:

There's no doubt that the Federal Communications Commission's adoption of "net neutrality" rules to govern the Internet is another one of those proverbial "solutions" in search of a problem that will only fetter technological advancement and investment therein.

But there's a far more troubling aspect to this latest foray into what's effectively the government's nationalization of the Internet. It's the intellectual underpinnings of the philosophy that led to this moment. And use of the word "intellectual" is being charitable.

As The Wall Street Journal's John Fund notes, "net neutrality" is the brainchild of University of Illinois communications professor Robert McChesney, a self-proclaimed socialist who told Mr. Fund he's "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."

Mr. McChesney's overriding goal is to "get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and divest them from any control." How? Through "a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself."

Funny thing, if you'll notice, is that they never get around to discuss Net Neutrality or why it's such (to them at least) a bad thing.

Here's the Congressional Research Service:

As congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform a major point of contention is the question of whether action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and non-discriminatory treatment, is referred to as “net neutrality.” There is no single accepted definition of “net neutrality.” However, most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network; and should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network.

So you can see why a conservative pro-business page would think "net neutrality" is bad: its a "move to place restrictions on the owners" or ISPs, making sure everyone has "equal access" to the internet.

Let's see, restrictions on business protecting equal access to consumers:

MY GOD THAT'S GODLESS MARXIST SOCIALISM!!!
Hahahaha! Silly ninnies.

Note to my fellow progressives: The Guvment takeover of Amurikan society is nearly complete. Now that The Messiah has asserted his rightful control over the auto industry, the health care industry, the banking industry, the Internet and made sure every foxhole and barrack's shower is simply fabulous, all we need do is sit back and wait for the whole corrupt capitalist conspiracy to collapse.

Note to Soros: I'm still waiting on my check. If you could make it out in Renminbi, that would be great. After the damage you're (well, we're) doing to the dollar, I'd like my payoff in a more reliable currency. THANKS!

From The Religious Fringe

One sign at a National Organization for Marriage rally in Indianapolis.


The thing is, the sign is right in one sense: Leviticus 20:13 does say that a man who "lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman" shall be put to death.

Says so right here. So let it be written so let it be done.

But did you know what Leviticus 20:10 says? It's only three verses sooner so it shouldn't be that hard to find. Here it is:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

So if we've established Leviticus as the law of the land, we should then be killing all adulterers, too.

All of them.

Consistency is everything and there are no exceptions with The Lord.

We could do that OR we can be civilized.